If America was righteous they would do an honest review of this program. Nothing less, nothing more. I'm even ok with the final word from the gov't being. "Whatever you do digitally around the globe is considered public record. So don't be surprised if it is recorded and used for surveillance". At least that puts the whole thing to bed, we then know where our privacies lie and that would not be online in any manner. However it could also be looked at and trimmed back a lot, which if that actually were to happen, would be a better thing.

To Dreyer who mentioned Snowden's position. It is a catch 22. I don't think there was ever supposed to be a part of gov't truly above the law, so a whistle-blower can in fact happen in such places and be allowed. Whistle-blowers in the past have brought down presidents legally. If the program is just is can handle scrutiny. That is why putting so much under top secret/national security is a device to allow those to become above the law. Catch 22's all over the place here, which breeds corruption, everyone knows this. That can't really be considered right. They then just manufacture lies to justify their existence.

I want to believe my country can handle whistle-blowers and in the end do the right things. This shouldn't topple us, threaten us or the like. It should make us better.

Agent.X7 wrote on Nov 2, 2013, 15:42:Haha, name me a South American country that respects human rights. And Russia isn't exactly a paragon of freedom and human rights.

Snowden's problem is that he isn;t a traitor, but 90% of the people who swear to uphold our Constitution ARE traitors, and they are ready to squash him like a bug to protect their power.

Example of Double Standards in International LAW

United States - Holds Asylum of a known CIA paid terrorist bomber Luis Pasada Carriles. Pasada was recruited by the CIA and BOMBED a cuban airliner, killing 76 innocent people in 1976.

Venezuela - Demands that the U.S. extradite Pasada for trial, but the U.S. refuses.

Venezuela said if Snowden were to reside in their country, they would only hand him over on the grounds that the U.S. hands over a known protected terrorists like Pasada that actually committed a real crime.

Look up history, the CIA and the U.S. government for YEARS subverted South American countries, going as far as installing dictators that went on killing rampages of their citizens. So I'd say the South American countries, at their core now, are highly resilient to illegal espionage by the U.S.

So that should give you a clue why South American countries, in the past, had governments that abused Human Rights.

Do you follow the international news much? All the governments in South America still have human rights abuse going on.

Brazil, while claiming to eradicate wage-slaves, has freed less than 2000 of the millions of them working on sugar plantations. Why? Because POLITICIANS. Police frequently torture people, and nothing is really done about it.

Venezuela? Yeah, a living paradise on earth. Chavez never once violated the human rights guarantees that HIS OWN FUCKING CONSTITUTION GURANTEED THE VENEZUELAN PEOPLE. Oh, wait. Yes he did, every damn day of his rule. Don't forget the awesomeness that is Caracas, a city where you are three times more likely to be murdered than in Cartel run Juarez Mexico. Number 6 in the world for muder rate baby, yeah!

Well that's two down, just 12 more to go until your generalization is correct.

How about instead of your useless sarcasm you give us an example of a wonderful human rights beacon in South America.

I'm not the one making generalizations about an entire continent.

Besides, it depends on your definition of "respects human rights" and the time period. I could probably point to examples in the histories of any country on the globe where they didn't "respect human rights".

But I guess I'll play your game... What about Uruguay since 1984 (30 years)?

No game. No need to be petty. I cannot stand up and proclaim the US is great at human rights. We clearly violate them when it suits us. Most countries do because politics and greed trump human rights every time.

Uruguay, in case you don't know, is big on child labor. We're not talking 10 or 15, we're talking 4 or 6 year olds working in mines with mercury, dynamite, etc. They are making "advancements" slowly, but at the rate they are moving this will continue basically forever. Most kids attend school AND work, but Uruguay plays games with the numbers and says "See? 90% of our children are in school!" Officially you need to be 13 to be employed there, but unofficially they don;t really give a shit.

And you don't need to believe me. You can think I have some agenda or another, whatever. But this information is publicly available and easily obtained from the Internet. News sources, human rights organizations, shit, even government releases.

My point is, it IS a broad generalization. Unfortunately, that generalization happens to be true, whether or not you or I like it.

Besides, it depends on your definition of "respects human rights" and the time period. I could probably point to examples in the histories of any country on the globe where they didn't "respect human rights".

Unfortunately, this is not some random period in history. It is right now and during the last decade.

PS - For those of you looking to "school me" because you think I am ignorant - I was a 4.0 college student all 3 times I went. I have studied history, acting, business, and IT. I know these things about South America because of research I have done during and after a class about modern South America. You can call me ignorant all you like, but you and I both know the truth.

Crimea is in Ukraine, not Russia. I doubt even Yanukovich would risk his EU trade deal by anteing up with Snowden on top of Tymoshenko.

Also, without supporting the US 's actions to stop the Soviet's incursions into South America, those countries are infinitely better off than Eastern Europe. Imagine if they were at the same level of development as Romania or Bulgaria. Imagine if every archeological treasure was in Petersberg like Ukraine and Georgia.

Beamer wrote on Nov 2, 2013, 22:43:Snowden pretty clearly shows the issue with any kind of whistleblower protection system. Its so subjective. How can you blow the whistle on something top secret and not be labeled treasonous? And how different would it be if it was a corporation and not the government?

his best hope is that a Republican is elected president and pardons him. A Dem won't, not for at least a decade, makes the party look bad. I don't see a Republican doing it, either, but better chance of it.

Yeah, current whistleblower protections in the US are a joke. There is almost always an attempted prosecution of anyone who tries it.

Even if Snowden is pardoned, he can never return. His face is too well known. If he returned, some misguided gun-toting "patriot" will take it upon himself to shoot the man.

Living in Russia is actually pretty dicey. Both the security forces and the Russian mafia routinely murder people there. If the CIA or NSA decides to off him, there's little standing between him and a bullet.

"The worst of it all is i used to ENJOY getting excited for big titles like this, but these publishers just keep ruining my love for this wonderful hobby with their endless fuckery." - Sempai

1badmf wrote on Nov 2, 2013, 22:10:i know snowden broke the law and is technically a traitor, but i don't see how anyone can conclude he's a coward. he stood up for the country he believes in, kissed his homeland and most of his loved ones good bye probably never to see them again. it's hard for me to comprehend the courage it took to knowingly ruin his life like that. in the final analysis i'm certain history will conclude that he was a patriot in the finest tradition of our founding fathers who voiced his dissent against a government that got way out of control for the best of intentions.

Exactly. Perfect summary.

"The worst of it all is i used to ENJOY getting excited for big titles like this, but these publishers just keep ruining my love for this wonderful hobby with their endless fuckery." - Sempai

That is a pop cultural reference, answering the very question you asked.

still waiting for you to name ONE.

You are gay, Uruguay ... Uruguay ... get it? Now you could call me a smart ass, that would be a valid point... but buddy you own ignorant, and wear it like a crown ... which is why I was being a smart ass

Agent.X7 wrote on Nov 2, 2013, 15:42:Haha, name me a South American country that respects human rights. And Russia isn't exactly a paragon of freedom and human rights.

Snowden's problem is that he isn;t a traitor, but 90% of the people who swear to uphold our Constitution ARE traitors, and they are ready to squash him like a bug to protect their power.

Example of Double Standards in International LAW

United States - Holds Asylum of a known CIA paid terrorist bomber Luis Pasada Carriles. Pasada was recruited by the CIA and BOMBED a cuban airliner, killing 76 innocent people in 1976.

Venezuela - Demands that the U.S. extradite Pasada for trial, but the U.S. refuses.

Venezuela said if Snowden were to reside in their country, they would only hand him over on the grounds that the U.S. hands over a known protected terrorists like Pasada that actually committed a real crime.

Look up history, the CIA and the U.S. government for YEARS subverted South American countries, going as far as installing dictators that went on killing rampages of their citizens. So I'd say the South American countries, at their core now, are highly resilient to illegal espionage by the U.S.

So that should give you a clue why South American countries, in the past, had governments that abused Human Rights.

Do you follow the international news much? All the governments in South America still have human rights abuse going on.

Brazil, while claiming to eradicate wage-slaves, has freed less than 2000 of the millions of them working on sugar plantations. Why? Because POLITICIANS. Police frequently torture people, and nothing is really done about it.

Venezuela? Yeah, a living paradise on earth. Chavez never once violated the human rights guarantees that HIS OWN FUCKING CONSTITUTION GURANTEED THE VENEZUELAN PEOPLE. Oh, wait. Yes he did, every damn day of his rule. Don't forget the awesomeness that is Caracas, a city where you are three times more likely to be murdered than in Cartel run Juarez Mexico. Number 6 in the world for muder rate baby, yeah!

Well that's two down, just 12 more to go until your generalization is correct.

How about instead of your useless sarcasm you give us an example of a wonderful human rights beacon in South America.

I'm not the one making generalizations about an entire continent.

Besides, it depends on your definition of "respects human rights" and the time period. I could probably point to examples in the histories of any country on the globe where they didn't "respect human rights".

But I guess I'll play your game... What about Uruguay since 1984 (30 years)?

Agent.X7 wrote on Nov 2, 2013, 18:46:And don't get me started on the CIA. Those guys have been royal cockups from the start. Let's put Castro in power! Whoops. Let's train Bin Laden and his Mujaheddin! Whoops. They are basically responsible for almost every terrorist act that has haunted us since WWII.

I suggest people read The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. You'll quickly realize that the US scrambled to assist and eventually take unwanted control over many of the declining colonial states that arose from European imperialism, particularly from our friends in the UK. The two examples you mention are symptomatic of pretty much how the UK (and the French, for that matter) handled colonialism up until the 1960's. The problems that exist today are largely because of those actions, they'd be far worse if the US hadn't stepped in out of necessity due to the Cold War (which Europe essentially begged for).

Seriously, read some history, people. I know it is en vogue to bash the imperial US, despite the fact that the British Empire held a quarter of the world's land and population less than a century ago. They also supported oil interests in Nigeria and royally screwed up Egypt, Iraq, etc., etc. France screwed up Vietnam, etc. The world was a mess before the US even got involved and would be much worse had it been left to anarchy (considering cannibalism was rampant in Africa until colonization, for example).

Is Snowden a traitor? He certainly committed treason - do the ends justify the means? It would be impossible for him to come back to the United States. However, turning again to history, emigres were common throughout the political age and are nothing new. There may come a time when he could return, and even afar he can be influential.

You can disagree with me, but I HAVE read history. A lot of it. And I'm telling you, the CIA is a string of fuckups all throughout history. I can't disagree that most nations that had colonies also fucked over the world. France, Spain, Portugal, Britain - they all exploited and destroyed their fair share.

Don't get me wrong, we have done some good things. Not lately, but in the not so distant past. We just can't expect the world to look at the good things and ignore the bad things. Or rather, we do expect that but shouldn't.

Snowden pretty clearly shows the issue with any kind of whistleblower protection system. Its so subjective. How can you blow the whistle on something top secret and not be labeled treasonous? And how different would it be if it was a corporation and not the government?

his best hope is that a Republican is elected president and pardons him. A Dem won't, not for at least a decade, makes the party look bad. I don't see a Republican doing it, either, but better chance of it.

Agent.X7 wrote on Nov 2, 2013, 15:42:Haha, name me a South American country that respects human rights. And Russia isn't exactly a paragon of freedom and human rights.

Snowden's problem is that he isn;t a traitor, but 90% of the people who swear to uphold our Constitution ARE traitors, and they are ready to squash him like a bug to protect their power.

Example of Double Standards in International LAW

United States - Holds Asylum of a known CIA paid terrorist bomber Luis Pasada Carriles. Pasada was recruited by the CIA and BOMBED a cuban airliner, killing 76 innocent people in 1976.

Venezuela - Demands that the U.S. extradite Pasada for trial, but the U.S. refuses.

Venezuela said if Snowden were to reside in their country, they would only hand him over on the grounds that the U.S. hands over a known protected terrorists like Pasada that actually committed a real crime.

Look up history, the CIA and the U.S. government for YEARS subverted South American countries, going as far as installing dictators that went on killing rampages of their citizens. So I'd say the South American countries, at their core now, are highly resilient to illegal espionage by the U.S.

So that should give you a clue why South American countries, in the past, had governments that abused Human Rights.

Do you follow the international news much? All the governments in South America still have human rights abuse going on.

Brazil, while claiming to eradicate wage-slaves, has freed less than 2000 of the millions of them working on sugar plantations. Why? Because POLITICIANS. Police frequently torture people, and nothing is really done about it.

Venezuela? Yeah, a living paradise on earth. Chavez never once violated the human rights guarantees that HIS OWN FUCKING CONSTITUTION GURANTEED THE VENEZUELAN PEOPLE. Oh, wait. Yes he did, every damn day of his rule. Don't forget the awesomeness that is Caracas, a city where you are three times more likely to be murdered than in Cartel run Juarez Mexico. Number 6 in the world for muder rate baby, yeah!

Well that's two down, just 12 more to go until your generalization is correct.

How about instead of your useless sarcasm you give us an example of a wonderful human rights beacon in South America.

Agent.X7 wrote on Nov 2, 2013, 18:46:And don't get me started on the CIA. Those guys have been royal cockups from the start. Let's put Castro in power! Whoops. Let's train Bin Laden and his Mujaheddin! Whoops. They are basically responsible for almost every terrorist act that has haunted us since WWII.

I suggest people read The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. You'll quickly realize that the US scrambled to assist and eventually take unwanted control over many of the declining colonial states that arose from European imperialism, particularly from our friends in the UK. The two examples you mention are symptomatic of pretty much how the UK (and the French, for that matter) handled colonialism up until the 1960's. The problems that exist today are largely because of those actions, they'd be far worse if the US hadn't stepped in out of necessity due to the Cold War (which Europe essentially begged for).

Seriously, read some history, people. I know it is en vogue to bash the imperial US, despite the fact that the British Empire held a quarter of the world's land and population less than a century ago. They also supported oil interests in Nigeria and royally screwed up Egypt, Iraq, etc., etc. France screwed up Vietnam, etc. The world was a mess before the US even got involved and would be much worse had it been left to anarchy (considering cannibalism was rampant in Africa until colonization, for example).

Is Snowden a traitor? He certainly committed treason - do the ends justify the means? It would be impossible for him to come back to the United States. However, turning again to history, emigres were common throughout the political age and are nothing new. There may come a time when he could return, and even afar he can be influential.

well put sir. the truth is far more complex than biased soapboxers would have us think. the US is not an innocent actor by any means, but i think any objective observer must conclude that the world would be a much darker place had we not exerted our influence and remained isolationist instead.

i know snowden broke the law and is technically a traitor, but i don't see how anyone can conclude he's a coward. he stood up for the country he believes in, kissed his homeland and most of his loved ones good bye probably never to see them again. it's hard for me to comprehend the courage it took to knowingly ruin his life like that. in the final analysis i'm certain history will conclude that he was a patriot in the finest tradition of our founding fathers who voiced his dissent against a government that got way out of control for the best of intentions.

Agent.X7 wrote on Nov 2, 2013, 18:46:And don't get me started on the CIA. Those guys have been royal cockups from the start. Let's put Castro in power! Whoops. Let's train Bin Laden and his Mujaheddin! Whoops. They are basically responsible for almost every terrorist act that has haunted us since WWII.

I suggest people read The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. You'll quickly realize that the US scrambled to assist and eventually take unwanted control over many of the declining colonial states that arose from European imperialism, particularly from our friends in the UK. The two examples you mention are symptomatic of pretty much how the UK (and the French, for that matter) handled colonialism up until the 1960's. The problems that exist today are largely because of those actions, they'd be far worse if the US hadn't stepped in out of necessity due to the Cold War (which Europe essentially begged for).

Seriously, read some history, people. I know it is en vogue to bash the imperial US, despite the fact that the British Empire held a quarter of the world's land and population less than a century ago. They also supported oil interests in Nigeria and royally screwed up Egypt, Iraq, etc., etc. France screwed up Vietnam, etc. The world was a mess before the US even got involved and would be much worse had it been left to anarchy (considering cannibalism was rampant in Africa until colonization, for example).

Is Snowden a traitor? He certainly committed treason - do the ends justify the means? It would be impossible for him to come back to the United States. However, turning again to history, emigres were common throughout the political age and are nothing new. There may come a time when he could return, and even afar he can be influential.

WaltC wrote on Nov 2, 2013, 17:45:Snowden had taken a sworn oath not to do exactly what he did.

Oath to his countrymen overrides oath to his government.

Could not agree more. If the government is doing something wrong and you know about it how does an oath to the government protect the country?

Personally I consider Snowden a patriot, unlike that imbalanced attention seeker Bradley/Chelsea Manning. Snowden had no recourse other than to do what he did. He went through all his legal options but the system was stacked against him. I hate that Obama and W try to justify this nonsense with some legal traveshamockery because I'm certain the founding fathers would be aghast at the breathtaking flaunting of the 4th amendment. As a matter of liberty, the law itself should never be a state secret. It's a shame he'll never see home soil again, cuz the powers-that-be will never give up trying to make an example of him.